not say as much concerning the Trinity I desire to lie under no better an Imputation than our Author has very justly deserv'd of stating other Mens Doctrines falsly and by halves according as the Byas of his present Inclinations turn'd him I could not imagine that ever Prejudice or Ill Nature should so far blind and mislead a Man as to hurry him into wilful Errors against the clearest Convictions both of Sense and Reason Don't we say every Day that there are so many Opinions about the first Origin of Things the Aristotelick Epicurean Christian c. and yet after all we acknowledge that the Christian is the only true Doctrine God forbid that every Man that mentions Opinion after that manner should commit a Sin For if he does I know none that can pronounce themselves Guiltless Our Vindicator after this spends a Page or two in shewing the difference between Faith and Opinion which Paper I think might have been better spared since it is nothing to his purpose For I know no where that the Bishop asserts Opinion to be Faith and if he had he might have been better and more clearly convinc'd of his Error by a few Pages in Bishop Pearson on the Creed than in a dark obscure Author But after all our Vindicator acknowledges that his Lordship sometimes calls it Doctrine but this term says he is Equivocal and agrees as usually to the Opinions of the Philosophers But here I must desire to know of our Critick whether ever he met with the Word Doctrine when it was applied in a Divinity Discourse to the Tenets of the Church to be meant of a Philosophical Opinion or when a Man is talking of the Doctrine of the Trinity of the Incarnation and Divinity of Christ he can at the same time refer it to the Opinions of Aristotle Plato Epicurus or Cartesius But it is the Fate of some of our over-grown Criticks to catch at Shadows when they can't lay hold of the Substance and to make themselves appear in their own Colours rather than say nothing In the next Place our Critick finds fault with the Bishop for saying That we believe Points of Doctrine because Pag. 6. that we are persuaded they are revealed to us in Scripture which he says is so languid and unsafe a Rule that it will resolve Faith into every Man's private Fancie and contradictory Opinions Now I had thought hitherto that the Scripture had been the adequate Measure and Rule of Faith and that whatsoever we were persuaded was really contain'd in the Scriptures we were oblig'd to believe it And though I am beholden to the universal consent of the Church for my Belief that those Books are the same that were delivered to us from the Apostles and Inspired Pen-men yet I am oblig'd to believe nothing as an Article of Faith but what I am persuaded is revealed in Scripture And certainly 't is much more safe to rely upon the pure Word of God for the Truth of any Doctrine if I am convinc'd that it was Divinely Inspired than as our Author would advise us to depend upon the best Tradition and most unanimous Exposition in the World Since at length I must recur to the Scriptures to examine that Tradition by and am no farther concern'd to believe this than I find it agreeable to the other 'T is true that it is every Man's Duty to submit to the unanimous Sense of the Church rather than to his own private Interpretation but yet it is no farther than he can find that Consent agreeable to the revealed Will of God And if this be not admitted as true Doctrine I can't imagine how we could ever have arriv'd at this Happy Reformation which we are now persuaded was absolutely necessary since it could never have been effected unless every Man has the Liberty of judging the Doctrine he professes by the Testimony of the Scriptures Nor are we to interpret the Scriptures so much by the Judgment of the Fathers and the Church as we try these by their Harmony and Consent with the former And hence it will follow that as we are not obliged to believe any thing which we think is contrary to Scripture so whatsoever we do or ought to believe as an Article of Faith we do it because we are fully and clearly persuaded that it is revealed to us in the Scriptures Else what shall those do who have no notion of Tradition and have no other Rule to guide them but the plain and direct Authority of God's Word And though every Man is not to be his own Interpreter yet he is to judge whether the received Interpretation is agreeable to Scripture or not If Mr. Hill had not here forgot the express Words of the Sixth Article of our Church which tells us That the Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary for Salvation So that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation he could not have run out so odly from it or rather against it it was the Foundation upon which the whole Reformation was built If Universal Tradition in the Third Fourth and Fifth Centuries was a good Argument in it self then why was not Universal Tradition in the Thirteenth Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries as good a one If the Authority of a Doctrine lies in the Tradition of it then all Ages must be alike as to this Therefore tho' it is a noble Confirmation of our Doctrine that we can appeal to the first Six Ages of the Church yet if the Corruption that happen'd after the Sixth Century had begun as early as the Third this had not at all chang'd the Nature of things And I believe it will be found a more simple and just way of interpreting Scripture by other places of it more easily and plainly express'd than by any other Method that can be found out for that purpose For if I am to judge of the Sense of Scripture only by Tradition and the Authority of the Fathers I shall be often at a loss and it will be as difficult to me to find out their Sense and meaning as it was that of the Text I was to enquire after But of this enough When I read this Criticism of our Vindicator's I was inclin'd to think he was though perhaps unwittingly set a work by the Papists as I before imagin'd he was by the Socinians to make Divisions and Schisms in the Church And this I take to be Mr. Hill's Orthodox Doctrine But let us carry him to his next Criticism His Lordship Pag. 8. says he is not clear in the point of Incarnation because he tells us that by the Union of the Eternal Word with Christ's Humanity God and Man truly became One Person Now here says our Authour we are not taught whether there were three or any one Person in the Godhead before the
really believe our Saviour to be the true Messias and at the same time to reject him but only that if they had not expected their Mefsias should be God they would have charged the Apostles and the Church with Idolatry in worshiping him whom though they had granted to be the Messias yet they own'd to be no more than Man as they expected their Messias to be And this seems to be such a convincing Argument for establishing the Deity of Christ as the Socinian Author durst not venture to attack it which unquestionably he would have done could he have forc'd such a Sense on his Lordship's Words or have understood them in the same manner as our Author has done And whoever will read the Bishop's Answer to his Socinian Adversary in his Letter to Dr. Williams must I think be necessarily convinc'd that his Lordship meant no otherwise by that Passage than I have interpreted it And thus have I done with the first part of our Author 's pretended Vindication I have considered every Objection that he has made have given it its full force and weight that he may not complain of any injustice done him or that his Sense has been confounded or his Meaning represented falsly and by halves as he has in several Places very apparently and too maliciously serv'd his Lordship's Discourse For as I have no other Aim or Design in this but the plain Discovery of Truth so have I nothing beside that to byass my Judgment on either side And now I hope I may leave it to all unprejudic'd Enquirers after Truth to judge whether all those hard Sayings with which he has so rudely and unlike a Christian especially one of his Profession every where treated his Lordship may be applauded as just or censured both as uncivil and unchristian I must confess that after I had made some progress in this Answer to his Vindication I had some Thoughts of laying it aside for I found it was so generally lookt upon as a Shuffage of scurrilous Expressions that it would seem superfluous to answer an Author that I found generally condemn'd But when I considered there be some who are ill natur'd enough to believe any Scandal that is cast upon those whom they are prejudic'd against without considering the Causes of it I thought I might do some Service by endeavouring to undeceive those who had been either wilfully prejudic'd or inconsiderately surpriz'd into a belief of such ill natur'd Aspersions I come now to consider our Vindicator's Second Part wherein he talks and quotes much and yet as I can find nothing to the purpose I shall pass over all his unjust and uncharitable Reflections and only enquire into the Causes which he grounds them upon The first thing he carps at is his Lordship's saying That he will not pretend to inform them how that Mystery is to be understood and in what respect these Persons are said to be One and in what respect they are Three Now what does this intimate Pag. 51 52. says our Author but that it is not laid down in Scripture in what respect the Persons are One and in what respect they are Three If our Author is resolv'd that every thing shall be meant according to his Interpretation of it I have nothing more to say to him But it seems obvious enough to me that his Lordship only means by it that he will not pretend to shew the Modes of their Existence and make the Mystery comprehensible to our Reason which seems the direct Sense of those Words of the Bishop's That he will not pretend to inform them how this Mystery is to be understood and which is also plain enough by his Lordship's Words that immediately follow the other before mentioned viz. By explaining a Mystery can only be meant the shewing how it is laid down and revealed in Scripture for to pretend to give any other Account of it is to take away its Mysteriousness when the manner how it is in it self is offer'd to be made intelligible I should have wonder'd how our Author could have forc'd any ill Sense from these Words had I not considered that what was at first his Design at last became his Interest to make his Writings all of a Piece and to discover the same evil Spirit throughout the whole The next thing he censures his Lordship for is for Pag. 54. saying That too many both Ancients and Moderns have perhaps gone beyond due Bounds while some were pleased with the Platonical Notions of Emanations and a Fecundity in the Divine Essence Now what Error his Lordship has fallen into by this I don't yet apprehend He does not positively express any dislike to those Notions or that they are otherwise than innocent if they are made use of by Men of sound and orthodox minds but only that they may have given Occasion to some who are less cautious than others to form too gross Conceptions of those things of which they can never have any adequate Idea And certainly some of the Fathers in this way of explaining this Matter have said many things which intimate that they believed an inequality between the Persons and a subordination of the Second and Third to the First And this our Author does dot deny but cites Dr. Bull to Pag. 89. confirm the Assertion of the Fathers teaching a Personal Gradation and Subordination in the Deity which probably these Notions might give the first rise and occasion to And if this be so our Author has only spent his time to give up a Cause which he endeavours to defend I suppose I need give no Answer to our Author's Reflection upon what his Lordship says viz. That these thought there was a Production or rather an Eduction of Two out of the First in the same manner that some Philosophers thought that Souls were propagated from Souls and the figure by which this was explain'd being that of one Candle being lighted at another this seems to have given the rise to those Words Light of Light Since our Author brings in Tertullian Justin Martyr and Tatian with the same Similies which I suppose is enough to his Lordship's purpose and is an exact Confirmation of what his Lordship has said And I wonder why our Vindicator should find fault with his Lordship for calling them Conceits when himself confesses Pag. 86. with Dr. Bull that those Similies are Lame and such as he will not make out I shall not enquire into the Original of that Expression Light of Light in our Nicene Crede for whatsoever it was that first occasion'd it 't is nothing at all to our present purpose Yet this is certain that such like Similies as the Bishop mentions were used by the Fathers in their Writings to explain their Notions of that Mystery by as well before as after the Nicene Council which makes his Lordship's Conjecture very probable A great part of what remains of our Author is spent in vindicating the Doctrine of the
plain that his Lordship believes the contrary by what he has urged in Defence of our Lord's Divinity that the Jews never objected Idolatry to the Christians which certainly they would have done had they not expected their Messias should be God Nor does his Lordship assert the former as is plain by what he adds That if this be true all the Speculations concerning an Eternal Generation which is a Doctrine he seems every where to maintain are cut off in the strict Sense of the Words And therefore our Vindicator has no reason to say That his Lordship has left this Doctrine in suspense whether it be true or no. His last Criticism is upon his Lordship's Saying That it may be justly questioned whether by these they have made it better to be understood or more firmly believed or whether others have not taken advantage to represent these Subtilties as Dregs either of Aeones of the Valentinians or of the Platonick Notions And it being long before these Theories were well stated and settled it is no wonder if many of the Fathers have not only differ'd from one another but even from themselves in speaking upon this Argument To this says our Critick after he has emptied himself of his foul Language which he every where abounds with That all these traduced Theories of Faith are universally professed and received in the whole Church of God and have but a very few Adversaries To this it may be answered that the Doctrine of the Trinity has been and is universally receiv'd nor does the Bishop deny it but that all those Theories about the Modes and the Explanations of it which some of the Fathers have left us are not may be very easily evinc'd Nor do I think it is any great Blemish to the Fathers or any Scandal cast upon their Authority which may be of dangerous Consequence to the Searchers into Antiquity as our Vindicator would insinuate to say that the Fathers could not search into the depth of that Mystery and that they were often at a loss in their Explanations of it though they might believe it as firmly and after the same manner as the Church Catholick now does For though perhaps most of us believe that great Article according to the true Sense of the Church yet probably if we went to explain it we should all follow different Methods and have far different Idea's from each other Which may serve to convince us how insufficient the most Rational and Thinking of us are to form any distinct Notions of those things which are so far above our Comprehensions I shall say nothing upon his Reflection upon Dr. Burnet's Remarks upon the Strong-Box Papers for as I have them not by me so I find a great deal of Reason to mistrust our Author's Integrity in every one of his Quotations which I have shewn have been very foul and unjust often took by halves and as often perverted to a wrong Sense directly contrary to the Author's meaning And now it may be asked Why one that has no Knowledge of the Bishop no more than from his Works or of Mr. Hill should engage himself in a Dispute in which he is no way concerned To this I can only answer That I had no other Inducement to it than the Indignation I had against such an indecent and unchristian way of Writing and such false Reasoning as the pretended Vindication is made up of I could scarce believe that a Clergy-man had he not told us he was one in the Title Page could have been guilty of so much Uncharitableness as I every where find in his Book And I must confess that I had much rather be guilty of an Error in my Judgment than offend in the Breach of so great a Duty which is so expresly laid down in Scripture and which ought to be one of the greatest Characteristicks of a Christian especially of those who are to instruct others in such Fundamental Duties both by Doctrine and Practice Because those who can't find out an Errour in our Judgment can easily discover those in our Practice which every one that can read may see too openly prostituted in our Author's Vindication At the horrour and just detestation of which I leave him to the Great Judge of all the Earth who will recompence every Man according to his Works and to the Censures of those who have the power here committed to them to punish the wrong-doers Who I hope for the Churches sake as well as for the sake of that right Reverend and Learned Person whom our Author design'd to cast a Blot upon will never suffer so much breach of Charity so much malice and ill nature such groundless Falsities and such Unchristian Temper to escape unpunished unless prevented by as full and publick a Recantation as his Offence hath been notorious POSTSCRIPT AFter I had sent this up to London I received a particular or two from a Gentleman who assured me he had it from the Bishops own mouth relating to the present Dispute which I thought might be proper to insert One is that the true reason why he avoided repeating of the word Person is this that he was to instruct his Clergy how to deal with Socinians who acknowledging no Authority but Scripture they must be only dealt with according to that Concession Therefore every thing was to be avoided that was not in terminis in Scripture Now when this Article is once proved then the use of the Terms Essence Persons Hypostasis and Consubstantial are to be justified both by shewing that they are not contrary to the Scripture but agreeing with it and also by shewing that it is in the power of the Church when no new Doctrine is pretended to be added to the Christian Faith to make use of such terms as may be thought fit to prevent and discover all Equivocations And since even the Name Persona in Latin may signifie a Vizar or Representation if Hereticks had owned a fraudulent meaning in receiving this it was in the power of the Church to have chosen another So that tho' the Church can add no new Doctrine to that which is revealed yet she may use stricter terms when she finds an abuse in the use of larger ones As for the reason that led him to give an account of the different ways used by the Ancients in explaining this Mystery it was only this that the answer to the Dean of St. Paul's was writ in so particular a Style that it was much read He feared this might be carried far to raise a fire in the Church and to give the Enemies of the Faith a pleasant Entertainment So tho his Lordship was not of the Dean of St. Paul's Opinion yet he thought it was fit as well as just to shew that great Authorities from the Ancients might be brought for it His chief intent being to lay that heat and to shew the inconvenience of going too far or too positively in Explanations So he mention'd only so much